Cleveland Indians to drop "Indians" from team name after 105 years

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

"Tribe" might not be offensive if the team wasn't already connected to a native american culturally insensitive name. to me that sounds like "Indians Light". 

and let's be honest, when anyone says the word "tribe", literally zero people get a picture of a group of white people in their head. 

I don't think that's true at all. A tribe is a word that yes, is Native American in nature, but is used in all sorts of contexts of a group of people with a common set of beliefs, or whatever.  Just like the Strangest Tribe.  To say that literally zero think of white people is kind of silly.  When I say Tribe, I think about Cleveland baseball fans, my fellow fans.  I don't think about Native Americans or anything else.  

That could be true, but to me, when I hear a white person use the word "tribe", the concept of cultural appropriation pops into  my head.  My step daughter, wonderful, bright, marvelous person that she is, occasionally uses the word "tribe" to describe her circle of friends and every time she does I think it sounds awkward at best.  For one thing, her "tribe", a great bunch of people though they may be, do not fit the definition of tribe...

"a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader"

...because they are an eclectic group that does not fit that definition.  

There is a modern usage of the term "tribe" with it's own contemporary definition, but that word, used that way, must honestly and unarguably be described as an example of cultural appropriation.  It then becomes an issue how how one feels about cultural appropriation.  Personal, I don't dig it.

So when a white kid wears Air Jordan's and a flat cap,  is that wrong? It's cultural appropriation by the very definition.  What about when you break dance or play some jazz on your sax. Where's the line between respect and damage?

Other than traditional costume, I don't think there is a well defined cultural affiliation with clothing.  I will say, at best it looks a bit embarrassing and silly when a rocker like Dee Dee Ramone dresses like a rapper. 

Mixed race jazz bands go back a long way and few black jazz musicians today or in the past have had strong objections to white musicians playing jazz.  On the other hand, some will strongly object to white jazz musicians being given better opportunity or recognition for the music.  For example, in the early 70's I took a jazz appreciation class at San Francisco state under the tutelage of black recording jazz artist John Handy.  John told us that in many circles, big band jazz was often attributed to white bands like the Glenn Miller Orchestra or Tommy Dorsey's band, etc.  Handy did not object to these bands playing jazz music, but he did object to the fact that they were given credit for creating music that was originally created by and better written and performed  black jazz bands-  orchestras led by the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie.  Those white bands were also paid better and given better accommodations. Handy and most other black performers argued rightly that racism was an obvious component in how the music was received and rewarded, but there was no mention of cultural appropriation in white bands playing jazz.  And some of the greatest jazz musicians have had integrated jazz band from Louis Armstrong to Charlie Parker hiring Red Rodney (and having to claim Rodney was an albino black in order to play in some clubs) to Mile Davis working with white musicians.

So of course cultural appropriation is not a factor in jazz.  But racism certainly has been.

What you just described is cultural appropriation, isn't it?  Just because it went deep into racism doesn't mean it wasn't appropriation. 

Well, but not really, but only because Jazz, though primarily black music, is also American music.  An though it was formed by African Americans, as truly American music, it makes sense that it would become inclusive of other cultures while being acknowledged as having originally been created by African Americans.  And again, it was mainly black jazz musicians who made the move to have integrated bands and their intentional inclusion of white musicians into the music removes it from cultural appropriation.  You won't find Native Americans encouraging whites to join in on Ghost Dancing. 

And I would say traditional music from specific places and times- like, say- Lakota Native American Ghost dance chanting-  is really the only music that could be culturally appropriated.  Jazz and blues have been more evolutionary and broadly inclusive in nature.

I'm making the point that cultural app is totally common in our country,  from music,  to dress to language.  We used to call it a melting pot of cultures but now it seems to be a negative thing. 

You're not wrong, but then I'd say that whoever labeled the Indians as "culturally appropriating" was missing the key point and that this is a very mildly related tangent.

mrussel1

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

MayDay10 said:

bbiggs said:

MayDay10 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

As the most die hard Indians fan that you'll meet (except of course John Adams who lugs the drum into every game), I'm okay with the name changing at this point.  I don't like the Spiders, the Naps, or any of the old names.  I'd go with the Tribe. That would create continuity and the reality is, no fan is ever going to stop saying "Hey, when's the Tribe on tonight?".  They are the Tribe and they play at the Jake.  It's that simple.  
As an aside, the College of William and Mary changed their name a number of years ago to the Tribe, for the same reason.  Works fine down here. 

I feel like teams that make this change are going to make a far bigger departure from native names than this. "Tribe" isn't much better than "Indians."  I see some people suggest Washington Warriors and while that's not as grotesque as their previous name, it seems like the smart move it to just move totally away from that and make sure not to be going through this same thing in ten years.

I agree with this.  "Tribe" still opens the door to all sorts of Native American characterization and such.  If they are doing such a major move as renaming a 120 year old sports team, they are going to make sure they are well out of the crosshairs.

Would Native Americans take offense to the word "tribe" under any circumstances?  I'm thinking through this and don't see how it could be perceived as offensive or characterizing.  I think it is factual that Native Americans were often times part of tribes that they took great pride in being a part of.  It would seem more of a badge of honor than a negative connotation.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert on Native American history, but much of this we learned at a very young age.  I'm just missing the potential negative fallout from a move like that.

Its about continuing to profit off the characterization of a race of people who seem to be making it clear that they are not comfortable with this stuff.  i dont know if they will take as much offense or not.  Im sure some people will.  Maybe "Tribe" will be considered over-the-line in 15 years?   
You know fans will come dressed in head dresses.  Maybe bring foam tomahawks, gotta be careful what is depicted on merchandise, etc...  It will still keep the door open for Chief Wahoo.   Would people just call them the "Indians" like they currently call them the "Tribe"?  

Tribe also leaves them where they are now for branding, which is kind of a purgatory/nowhere to go.  I sense the team would like a clean break from anything Native American so they can sell merch and create sharper looking uniforms

I think this would be the biggest reason to move past Tribe. What the hell do you even use as the image for your brand? It's dead in the water and the only purpose seems to be a nostalgic shout out to the previous name. They need a fresh start that sounds good, looks good and sells. This is a big opportunity that most franchises don't get so they should spend a lot of time and money getting this right. If they do, they'll sell a ton of merch to their fan base and anyone who just thinks it looks good.

I loved that mid-90's Cleveland team and was rooting for them to win the WS, even as a MN fan whose team had gone in the dumper in the middle of that decade. I had a t-shirt and a baseball cap that I wore all the time. It replaced my Michigan hat after someone stole it.

These are easy things for you to say when it isn't your team.  

nope. if it was my team i wouldn't give two shits. it would be weird at first, for sure, but to me ending the hurt of a large group of people is of much bigger importance

I didn't give a shit about the Redskins.  But I know a lot of people here in VA that did.  They understood it but didn't like it either.  They were sad. Sorry you can't identify even in the slightest, but don't act like no one would/should give two shits. 

No, I think that people who are upset that their racist team  name needs to change are just doubling down on the original error and shouldn’t get any sympathy. 

My aren't you judgy.

I do judge racists, and I don’t even feel remotely bad about that. 

Who are these racists of which you speak?

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

"Tribe" might not be offensive if the team wasn't already connected to a native american culturally insensitive name. to me that sounds like "Indians Light". 

and let's be honest, when anyone says the word "tribe", literally zero people get a picture of a group of white people in their head. 

I don't think that's true at all. A tribe is a word that yes, is Native American in nature, but is used in all sorts of contexts of a group of people with a common set of beliefs, or whatever.  Just like the Strangest Tribe.  To say that literally zero think of white people is kind of silly.  When I say Tribe, I think about Cleveland baseball fans, my fellow fans.  I don't think about Native Americans or anything else.  

That could be true, but to me, when I hear a white person use the word "tribe", the concept of cultural appropriation pops into  my head.  My step daughter, wonderful, bright, marvelous person that she is, occasionally uses the word "tribe" to describe her circle of friends and every time she does I think it sounds awkward at best.  For one thing, her "tribe", a great bunch of people though they may be, do not fit the definition of tribe...

"a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader"

...because they are an eclectic group that does not fit that definition.  

There is a modern usage of the term "tribe" with it's own contemporary definition, but that word, used that way, must honestly and unarguably be described as an example of cultural appropriation.  It then becomes an issue how how one feels about cultural appropriation.  Personal, I don't dig it.

So when a white kid wears Air Jordan's and a flat cap,  is that wrong? It's cultural appropriation by the very definition.  What about when you break dance or play some jazz on your sax. Where's the line between respect and damage?

Other than traditional costume, I don't think there is a well defined cultural affiliation with clothing.  I will say, at best it looks a bit embarrassing and silly when a rocker like Dee Dee Ramone dresses like a rapper. 

Mixed race jazz bands go back a long way and few black jazz musicians today or in the past have had strong objections to white musicians playing jazz.  On the other hand, some will strongly object to white jazz musicians being given better opportunity or recognition for the music.  For example, in the early 70's I took a jazz appreciation class at San Francisco state under the tutelage of black recording jazz artist John Handy.  John told us that in many circles, big band jazz was often attributed to white bands like the Glenn Miller Orchestra or Tommy Dorsey's band, etc.  Handy did not object to these bands playing jazz music, but he did object to the fact that they were given credit for creating music that was originally created by and better written and performed  black jazz bands-  orchestras led by the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie.  Those white bands were also paid better and given better accommodations. Handy and most other black performers argued rightly that racism was an obvious component in how the music was received and rewarded, but there was no mention of cultural appropriation in white bands playing jazz.  And some of the greatest jazz musicians have had integrated jazz band from Louis Armstrong to Charlie Parker hiring Red Rodney (and having to claim Rodney was an albino black in order to play in some clubs) to Mile Davis working with white musicians.

So of course cultural appropriation is not a factor in jazz.  But racism certainly has been.

What you just described is cultural appropriation, isn't it?  Just because it went deep into racism doesn't mean it wasn't appropriation. 

Well, but not really, but only because Jazz, though primarily black music, is also American music.  An though it was formed by African Americans, as truly American music, it makes sense that it would become inclusive of other cultures while being acknowledged as having originally been created by African Americans.  And again, it was mainly black jazz musicians who made the move to have integrated bands and their intentional inclusion of white musicians into the music removes it from cultural appropriation.  You won't find Native Americans encouraging whites to join in on Ghost Dancing. 

And I would say traditional music from specific places and times- like, say- Lakota Native American Ghost dance chanting-  is really the only music that could be culturally appropriated.  Jazz and blues have been more evolutionary and broadly inclusive in nature.

I'm making the point that cultural app is totally common in our country,  from music,  to dress to language.  We used to call it a melting pot of cultures but now it seems to be a negative thing. 

I'm good with the idea of incorporating ideas in music, dress or whatever as long as it is approved of by all concerned.  But if something specific to a group or culture is appropriated without consent of that culture or group, I would say that is an egregious act of cultural theft, aka cultural appropriation.

Meltdown99

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

MayDay10 said:

bbiggs said:

MayDay10 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

As the most die hard Indians fan that you'll meet (except of course John Adams who lugs the drum into every game), I'm okay with the name changing at this point.  I don't like the Spiders, the Naps, or any of the old names.  I'd go with the Tribe. That would create continuity and the reality is, no fan is ever going to stop saying "Hey, when's the Tribe on tonight?".  They are the Tribe and they play at the Jake.  It's that simple.  
As an aside, the College of William and Mary changed their name a number of years ago to the Tribe, for the same reason.  Works fine down here. 

I feel like teams that make this change are going to make a far bigger departure from native names than this. "Tribe" isn't much better than "Indians."  I see some people suggest Washington Warriors and while that's not as grotesque as their previous name, it seems like the smart move it to just move totally away from that and make sure not to be going through this same thing in ten years.

I agree with this.  "Tribe" still opens the door to all sorts of Native American characterization and such.  If they are doing such a major move as renaming a 120 year old sports team, they are going to make sure they are well out of the crosshairs.

Would Native Americans take offense to the word "tribe" under any circumstances?  I'm thinking through this and don't see how it could be perceived as offensive or characterizing.  I think it is factual that Native Americans were often times part of tribes that they took great pride in being a part of.  It would seem more of a badge of honor than a negative connotation.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert on Native American history, but much of this we learned at a very young age.  I'm just missing the potential negative fallout from a move like that.

Its about continuing to profit off the characterization of a race of people who seem to be making it clear that they are not comfortable with this stuff.  i dont know if they will take as much offense or not.  Im sure some people will.  Maybe "Tribe" will be considered over-the-line in 15 years?   
You know fans will come dressed in head dresses.  Maybe bring foam tomahawks, gotta be careful what is depicted on merchandise, etc...  It will still keep the door open for Chief Wahoo.   Would people just call them the "Indians" like they currently call them the "Tribe"?  

Tribe also leaves them where they are now for branding, which is kind of a purgatory/nowhere to go.  I sense the team would like a clean break from anything Native American so they can sell merch and create sharper looking uniforms

I think this would be the biggest reason to move past Tribe. What the hell do you even use as the image for your brand? It's dead in the water and the only purpose seems to be a nostalgic shout out to the previous name. They need a fresh start that sounds good, looks good and sells. This is a big opportunity that most franchises don't get so they should spend a lot of time and money getting this right. If they do, they'll sell a ton of merch to their fan base and anyone who just thinks it looks good.

I loved that mid-90's Cleveland team and was rooting for them to win the WS, even as a MN fan whose team had gone in the dumper in the middle of that decade. I had a t-shirt and a baseball cap that I wore all the time. It replaced my Michigan hat after someone stole it.

These are easy things for you to say when it isn't your team.  

nope. if it was my team i wouldn't give two shits. it would be weird at first, for sure, but to me ending the hurt of a large group of people is of much bigger importance

I didn't give a shit about the Redskins.  But I know a lot of people here in VA that did.  They understood it but didn't like it either.  They were sad. Sorry you can't identify even in the slightest, but don't act like no one would/should give two shits. 

No, I think that people who are upset that their racist team  name needs to change are just doubling down on the original error and shouldn’t get any sympathy. 

My aren't you judgy.

I do judge racists, and I don’t even feel remotely bad about that. 

Who are these racists of which you speak?

Mr. Blackface.  the current PM of Canada.



Hell, Trudeau took blackface up a notch and went full blackface and black body....

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

"Tribe" might not be offensive if the team wasn't already connected to a native american culturally insensitive name. to me that sounds like "Indians Light". 

and let's be honest, when anyone says the word "tribe", literally zero people get a picture of a group of white people in their head. 

I don't think that's true at all. A tribe is a word that yes, is Native American in nature, but is used in all sorts of contexts of a group of people with a common set of beliefs, or whatever.  Just like the Strangest Tribe.  To say that literally zero think of white people is kind of silly.  When I say Tribe, I think about Cleveland baseball fans, my fellow fans.  I don't think about Native Americans or anything else.  

That could be true, but to me, when I hear a white person use the word "tribe", the concept of cultural appropriation pops into  my head.  My step daughter, wonderful, bright, marvelous person that she is, occasionally uses the word "tribe" to describe her circle of friends and every time she does I think it sounds awkward at best.  For one thing, her "tribe", a great bunch of people though they may be, do not fit the definition of tribe...

"a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader"

...because they are an eclectic group that does not fit that definition.  

There is a modern usage of the term "tribe" with it's own contemporary definition, but that word, used that way, must honestly and unarguably be described as an example of cultural appropriation.  It then becomes an issue how how one feels about cultural appropriation.  Personal, I don't dig it.

So when a white kid wears Air Jordan's and a flat cap,  is that wrong? It's cultural appropriation by the very definition.  What about when you break dance or play some jazz on your sax. Where's the line between respect and damage?

Other than traditional costume, I don't think there is a well defined cultural affiliation with clothing.  I will say, at best it looks a bit embarrassing and silly when a rocker like Dee Dee Ramone dresses like a rapper. 

Mixed race jazz bands go back a long way and few black jazz musicians today or in the past have had strong objections to white musicians playing jazz.  On the other hand, some will strongly object to white jazz musicians being given better opportunity or recognition for the music.  For example, in the early 70's I took a jazz appreciation class at San Francisco state under the tutelage of black recording jazz artist John Handy.  John told us that in many circles, big band jazz was often attributed to white bands like the Glenn Miller Orchestra or Tommy Dorsey's band, etc.  Handy did not object to these bands playing jazz music, but he did object to the fact that they were given credit for creating music that was originally created by and better written and performed  black jazz bands-  orchestras led by the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie.  Those white bands were also paid better and given better accommodations. Handy and most other black performers argued rightly that racism was an obvious component in how the music was received and rewarded, but there was no mention of cultural appropriation in white bands playing jazz.  And some of the greatest jazz musicians have had integrated jazz band from Louis Armstrong to Charlie Parker hiring Red Rodney (and having to claim Rodney was an albino black in order to play in some clubs) to Mile Davis working with white musicians.

So of course cultural appropriation is not a factor in jazz.  But racism certainly has been.

What you just described is cultural appropriation, isn't it?  Just because it went deep into racism doesn't mean it wasn't appropriation. 

Well, but not really, but only because Jazz, though primarily black music, is also American music.  An though it was formed by African Americans, as truly American music, it makes sense that it would become inclusive of other cultures while being acknowledged as having originally been created by African Americans.  And again, it was mainly black jazz musicians who made the move to have integrated bands and their intentional inclusion of white musicians into the music removes it from cultural appropriation.  You won't find Native Americans encouraging whites to join in on Ghost Dancing. 

And I would say traditional music from specific places and times- like, say- Lakota Native American Ghost dance chanting-  is really the only music that could be culturally appropriated.  Jazz and blues have been more evolutionary and broadly inclusive in nature.

I'm making the point that cultural app is totally common in our country,  from music,  to dress to language.  We used to call it a melting pot of cultures but now it seems to be a negative thing. 

I'm good with the idea of incorporating ideas in music, dress or whatever as long as it is approved of by all concerned.  But if something specific to a group or culture is appropriated without consent of that culture or group, I would say that is an egregious act of cultural theft, aka cultural appropriation.

Brian - so I'm not trying to pick you apart, but what does that mean?  The whole culture has to unanimously agree?  Does there have to a vote?  Surely some Black people were uncomfortable with the success of the Beastie Boys.  Should I ditch the records, should they be removed from the HOF, should their records come off the shelf?  The bar you set is unachievable.  How does a culture provide consent?

oftenreading

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

MayDay10 said:

bbiggs said:

MayDay10 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

As the most die hard Indians fan that you'll meet (except of course John Adams who lugs the drum into every game), I'm okay with the name changing at this point.  I don't like the Spiders, the Naps, or any of the old names.  I'd go with the Tribe. That would create continuity and the reality is, no fan is ever going to stop saying "Hey, when's the Tribe on tonight?".  They are the Tribe and they play at the Jake.  It's that simple.  
As an aside, the College of William and Mary changed their name a number of years ago to the Tribe, for the same reason.  Works fine down here. 

I feel like teams that make this change are going to make a far bigger departure from native names than this. "Tribe" isn't much better than "Indians."  I see some people suggest Washington Warriors and while that's not as grotesque as their previous name, it seems like the smart move it to just move totally away from that and make sure not to be going through this same thing in ten years.

I agree with this.  "Tribe" still opens the door to all sorts of Native American characterization and such.  If they are doing such a major move as renaming a 120 year old sports team, they are going to make sure they are well out of the crosshairs.

Would Native Americans take offense to the word "tribe" under any circumstances?  I'm thinking through this and don't see how it could be perceived as offensive or characterizing.  I think it is factual that Native Americans were often times part of tribes that they took great pride in being a part of.  It would seem more of a badge of honor than a negative connotation.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert on Native American history, but much of this we learned at a very young age.  I'm just missing the potential negative fallout from a move like that.

Its about continuing to profit off the characterization of a race of people who seem to be making it clear that they are not comfortable with this stuff.  i dont know if they will take as much offense or not.  Im sure some people will.  Maybe "Tribe" will be considered over-the-line in 15 years?   
You know fans will come dressed in head dresses.  Maybe bring foam tomahawks, gotta be careful what is depicted on merchandise, etc...  It will still keep the door open for Chief Wahoo.   Would people just call them the "Indians" like they currently call them the "Tribe"?  

Tribe also leaves them where they are now for branding, which is kind of a purgatory/nowhere to go.  I sense the team would like a clean break from anything Native American so they can sell merch and create sharper looking uniforms

I think this would be the biggest reason to move past Tribe. What the hell do you even use as the image for your brand? It's dead in the water and the only purpose seems to be a nostalgic shout out to the previous name. They need a fresh start that sounds good, looks good and sells. This is a big opportunity that most franchises don't get so they should spend a lot of time and money getting this right. If they do, they'll sell a ton of merch to their fan base and anyone who just thinks it looks good.

I loved that mid-90's Cleveland team and was rooting for them to win the WS, even as a MN fan whose team had gone in the dumper in the middle of that decade. I had a t-shirt and a baseball cap that I wore all the time. It replaced my Michigan hat after someone stole it.

These are easy things for you to say when it isn't your team.  

nope. if it was my team i wouldn't give two shits. it would be weird at first, for sure, but to me ending the hurt of a large group of people is of much bigger importance

I didn't give a shit about the Redskins.  But I know a lot of people here in VA that did.  They understood it but didn't like it either.  They were sad. Sorry you can't identify even in the slightest, but don't act like no one would/should give two shits. 

No, I think that people who are upset that their racist team  name needs to change are just doubling down on the original error and shouldn’t get any sympathy. 

My aren't you judgy.

I do judge racists, and I don’t even feel remotely bad about that. 

Who are these racists of which you speak?

They’re all around us, unfortunately. 

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

MayDay10 said:

bbiggs said:

MayDay10 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

As the most die hard Indians fan that you'll meet (except of course John Adams who lugs the drum into every game), I'm okay with the name changing at this point.  I don't like the Spiders, the Naps, or any of the old names.  I'd go with the Tribe. That would create continuity and the reality is, no fan is ever going to stop saying "Hey, when's the Tribe on tonight?".  They are the Tribe and they play at the Jake.  It's that simple.  
As an aside, the College of William and Mary changed their name a number of years ago to the Tribe, for the same reason.  Works fine down here. 

I feel like teams that make this change are going to make a far bigger departure from native names than this. "Tribe" isn't much better than "Indians."  I see some people suggest Washington Warriors and while that's not as grotesque as their previous name, it seems like the smart move it to just move totally away from that and make sure not to be going through this same thing in ten years.

I agree with this.  "Tribe" still opens the door to all sorts of Native American characterization and such.  If they are doing such a major move as renaming a 120 year old sports team, they are going to make sure they are well out of the crosshairs.

Would Native Americans take offense to the word "tribe" under any circumstances?  I'm thinking through this and don't see how it could be perceived as offensive or characterizing.  I think it is factual that Native Americans were often times part of tribes that they took great pride in being a part of.  It would seem more of a badge of honor than a negative connotation.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert on Native American history, but much of this we learned at a very young age.  I'm just missing the potential negative fallout from a move like that.

Its about continuing to profit off the characterization of a race of people who seem to be making it clear that they are not comfortable with this stuff.  i dont know if they will take as much offense or not.  Im sure some people will.  Maybe "Tribe" will be considered over-the-line in 15 years?   
You know fans will come dressed in head dresses.  Maybe bring foam tomahawks, gotta be careful what is depicted on merchandise, etc...  It will still keep the door open for Chief Wahoo.   Would people just call them the "Indians" like they currently call them the "Tribe"?  

Tribe also leaves them where they are now for branding, which is kind of a purgatory/nowhere to go.  I sense the team would like a clean break from anything Native American so they can sell merch and create sharper looking uniforms

I think this would be the biggest reason to move past Tribe. What the hell do you even use as the image for your brand? It's dead in the water and the only purpose seems to be a nostalgic shout out to the previous name. They need a fresh start that sounds good, looks good and sells. This is a big opportunity that most franchises don't get so they should spend a lot of time and money getting this right. If they do, they'll sell a ton of merch to their fan base and anyone who just thinks it looks good.

I loved that mid-90's Cleveland team and was rooting for them to win the WS, even as a MN fan whose team had gone in the dumper in the middle of that decade. I had a t-shirt and a baseball cap that I wore all the time. It replaced my Michigan hat after someone stole it.

These are easy things for you to say when it isn't your team.  

nope. if it was my team i wouldn't give two shits. it would be weird at first, for sure, but to me ending the hurt of a large group of people is of much bigger importance

I didn't give a shit about the Redskins.  But I know a lot of people here in VA that did.  They understood it but didn't like it either.  They were sad. Sorry you can't identify even in the slightest, but don't act like no one would/should give two shits. 

it's just that i think squabbling over a marketing item is silly. because when it comes down to it, that's all a team name is. marketing. 

 i mean, i have the same conversations about band names with people. "it's not alice in chains without layne", etc. i personally don't care. the band is whatever the band wants to call itself. 

if ed left and the rest of the guys hired scott stapp and still called it pearl jam, i couldn't give two shits. its' a name. 

and believe me when i tell you i'm one of the more nostalgic people i know. team/band names just don't fall into that category for me. 

mrussel1

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

MayDay10 said:

bbiggs said:

MayDay10 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

As the most die hard Indians fan that you'll meet (except of course John Adams who lugs the drum into every game), I'm okay with the name changing at this point.  I don't like the Spiders, the Naps, or any of the old names.  I'd go with the Tribe. That would create continuity and the reality is, no fan is ever going to stop saying "Hey, when's the Tribe on tonight?".  They are the Tribe and they play at the Jake.  It's that simple.  
As an aside, the College of William and Mary changed their name a number of years ago to the Tribe, for the same reason.  Works fine down here. 

I feel like teams that make this change are going to make a far bigger departure from native names than this. "Tribe" isn't much better than "Indians."  I see some people suggest Washington Warriors and while that's not as grotesque as their previous name, it seems like the smart move it to just move totally away from that and make sure not to be going through this same thing in ten years.

I agree with this.  "Tribe" still opens the door to all sorts of Native American characterization and such.  If they are doing such a major move as renaming a 120 year old sports team, they are going to make sure they are well out of the crosshairs.

Would Native Americans take offense to the word "tribe" under any circumstances?  I'm thinking through this and don't see how it could be perceived as offensive or characterizing.  I think it is factual that Native Americans were often times part of tribes that they took great pride in being a part of.  It would seem more of a badge of honor than a negative connotation.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert on Native American history, but much of this we learned at a very young age.  I'm just missing the potential negative fallout from a move like that.

Its about continuing to profit off the characterization of a race of people who seem to be making it clear that they are not comfortable with this stuff.  i dont know if they will take as much offense or not.  Im sure some people will.  Maybe "Tribe" will be considered over-the-line in 15 years?   
You know fans will come dressed in head dresses.  Maybe bring foam tomahawks, gotta be careful what is depicted on merchandise, etc...  It will still keep the door open for Chief Wahoo.   Would people just call them the "Indians" like they currently call them the "Tribe"?  

Tribe also leaves them where they are now for branding, which is kind of a purgatory/nowhere to go.  I sense the team would like a clean break from anything Native American so they can sell merch and create sharper looking uniforms

I think this would be the biggest reason to move past Tribe. What the hell do you even use as the image for your brand? It's dead in the water and the only purpose seems to be a nostalgic shout out to the previous name. They need a fresh start that sounds good, looks good and sells. This is a big opportunity that most franchises don't get so they should spend a lot of time and money getting this right. If they do, they'll sell a ton of merch to their fan base and anyone who just thinks it looks good.

I loved that mid-90's Cleveland team and was rooting for them to win the WS, even as a MN fan whose team had gone in the dumper in the middle of that decade. I had a t-shirt and a baseball cap that I wore all the time. It replaced my Michigan hat after someone stole it.

These are easy things for you to say when it isn't your team.  

nope. if it was my team i wouldn't give two shits. it would be weird at first, for sure, but to me ending the hurt of a large group of people is of much bigger importance

I didn't give a shit about the Redskins.  But I know a lot of people here in VA that did.  They understood it but didn't like it either.  They were sad. Sorry you can't identify even in the slightest, but don't act like no one would/should give two shits. 

No, I think that people who are upset that their racist team  name needs to change are just doubling down on the original error and shouldn’t get any sympathy. 

My aren't you judgy.

I do judge racists, and I don’t even feel remotely bad about that. 

Who are these racists of which you speak?

They’re all around us, unfortunately. 

That's pretty vague.  Be more specific as it relates to this conversation.  Surely your post was in reference to this conversation and not just a random observation. 

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

MayDay10 said:

bbiggs said:

MayDay10 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

As the most die hard Indians fan that you'll meet (except of course John Adams who lugs the drum into every game), I'm okay with the name changing at this point.  I don't like the Spiders, the Naps, or any of the old names.  I'd go with the Tribe. That would create continuity and the reality is, no fan is ever going to stop saying "Hey, when's the Tribe on tonight?".  They are the Tribe and they play at the Jake.  It's that simple.  
As an aside, the College of William and Mary changed their name a number of years ago to the Tribe, for the same reason.  Works fine down here. 

I feel like teams that make this change are going to make a far bigger departure from native names than this. "Tribe" isn't much better than "Indians."  I see some people suggest Washington Warriors and while that's not as grotesque as their previous name, it seems like the smart move it to just move totally away from that and make sure not to be going through this same thing in ten years.

I agree with this.  "Tribe" still opens the door to all sorts of Native American characterization and such.  If they are doing such a major move as renaming a 120 year old sports team, they are going to make sure they are well out of the crosshairs.

Would Native Americans take offense to the word "tribe" under any circumstances?  I'm thinking through this and don't see how it could be perceived as offensive or characterizing.  I think it is factual that Native Americans were often times part of tribes that they took great pride in being a part of.  It would seem more of a badge of honor than a negative connotation.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert on Native American history, but much of this we learned at a very young age.  I'm just missing the potential negative fallout from a move like that.

Its about continuing to profit off the characterization of a race of people who seem to be making it clear that they are not comfortable with this stuff.  i dont know if they will take as much offense or not.  Im sure some people will.  Maybe "Tribe" will be considered over-the-line in 15 years?   
You know fans will come dressed in head dresses.  Maybe bring foam tomahawks, gotta be careful what is depicted on merchandise, etc...  It will still keep the door open for Chief Wahoo.   Would people just call them the "Indians" like they currently call them the "Tribe"?  

Tribe also leaves them where they are now for branding, which is kind of a purgatory/nowhere to go.  I sense the team would like a clean break from anything Native American so they can sell merch and create sharper looking uniforms

I think this would be the biggest reason to move past Tribe. What the hell do you even use as the image for your brand? It's dead in the water and the only purpose seems to be a nostalgic shout out to the previous name. They need a fresh start that sounds good, looks good and sells. This is a big opportunity that most franchises don't get so they should spend a lot of time and money getting this right. If they do, they'll sell a ton of merch to their fan base and anyone who just thinks it looks good.

I loved that mid-90's Cleveland team and was rooting for them to win the WS, even as a MN fan whose team had gone in the dumper in the middle of that decade. I had a t-shirt and a baseball cap that I wore all the time. It replaced my Michigan hat after someone stole it.

These are easy things for you to say when it isn't your team.  

nope. if it was my team i wouldn't give two shits. it would be weird at first, for sure, but to me ending the hurt of a large group of people is of much bigger importance

I didn't give a shit about the Redskins.  But I know a lot of people here in VA that did.  They understood it but didn't like it either.  They were sad. Sorry you can't identify even in the slightest, but don't act like no one would/should give two shits. 

you said 'easy to say when it's not your team". my answer was a direct retort to that, in that i wouldn't personally care if it was my team. 

i never said anything about not understanding why it might upset people. i do get that. but these people obviously don't understand the cultural and ethical implications, or don't care, because if they did, in my opinion, they wouldn't care so much about the name. whether it be tribe or indians or otherwise. 

HughFreakingDillon

i just don't get how people can be more upset about a team name than the hurt it causes a massive group of people that have been oppressed and mocked for hundreds of years. it's not even close. 

mrussel1

HughFreakingDillon said:

i just don't get how people can be more upset about a team name than the hurt it causes a massive group of people that have been oppressed and mocked for hundreds of years. it's not even close. 

Lot of assumptions here.  Who said anything about being upset about the Indians name being removed.  I continue to focus on the word Tribe, and I continue to say it's not racist.  Yes it's cultural appropriation, but again, there are a million things in our culture that are the same.  And if I'm not upset, then certainly I'm not more upset than the hurt you are saying it caused. 

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

i just don't get how people can be more upset about a team name than the hurt it causes a massive group of people that have been oppressed and mocked for hundreds of years. it's not even close. 

Lot of assumptions here.  Who said anything about being upset about the Indians name being removed.  I continue to focus on the word Tribe, and I continue to say it's not racist.  Yes it's cultural appropriation, but again, there are a million things in our culture that are the same.  And if I'm not upset, then certainly I'm not more upset than the hurt you are saying it caused. 

this was a general comment, and hence you were not quoted. there are a LOT of people upset with it. whether you fall into that category or not. 

Halifax2TheMax

Ohio branch of AIM has been requesting a name change since the 1970's. See? They were listened to. Personally, I like the Cleveland Spiders. That logo is awesome.

tbergs

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

MayDay10 said:

bbiggs said:

MayDay10 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

As the most die hard Indians fan that you'll meet (except of course John Adams who lugs the drum into every game), I'm okay with the name changing at this point.  I don't like the Spiders, the Naps, or any of the old names.  I'd go with the Tribe. That would create continuity and the reality is, no fan is ever going to stop saying "Hey, when's the Tribe on tonight?".  They are the Tribe and they play at the Jake.  It's that simple.  
As an aside, the College of William and Mary changed their name a number of years ago to the Tribe, for the same reason.  Works fine down here. 

I feel like teams that make this change are going to make a far bigger departure from native names than this. "Tribe" isn't much better than "Indians."  I see some people suggest Washington Warriors and while that's not as grotesque as their previous name, it seems like the smart move it to just move totally away from that and make sure not to be going through this same thing in ten years.

I agree with this.  "Tribe" still opens the door to all sorts of Native American characterization and such.  If they are doing such a major move as renaming a 120 year old sports team, they are going to make sure they are well out of the crosshairs.

Would Native Americans take offense to the word "tribe" under any circumstances?  I'm thinking through this and don't see how it could be perceived as offensive or characterizing.  I think it is factual that Native Americans were often times part of tribes that they took great pride in being a part of.  It would seem more of a badge of honor than a negative connotation.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert on Native American history, but much of this we learned at a very young age.  I'm just missing the potential negative fallout from a move like that.

Its about continuing to profit off the characterization of a race of people who seem to be making it clear that they are not comfortable with this stuff.  i dont know if they will take as much offense or not.  Im sure some people will.  Maybe "Tribe" will be considered over-the-line in 15 years?   
You know fans will come dressed in head dresses.  Maybe bring foam tomahawks, gotta be careful what is depicted on merchandise, etc...  It will still keep the door open for Chief Wahoo.   Would people just call them the "Indians" like they currently call them the "Tribe"?  

Tribe also leaves them where they are now for branding, which is kind of a purgatory/nowhere to go.  I sense the team would like a clean break from anything Native American so they can sell merch and create sharper looking uniforms

I think this would be the biggest reason to move past Tribe. What the hell do you even use as the image for your brand? It's dead in the water and the only purpose seems to be a nostalgic shout out to the previous name. They need a fresh start that sounds good, looks good and sells. This is a big opportunity that most franchises don't get so they should spend a lot of time and money getting this right. If they do, they'll sell a ton of merch to their fan base and anyone who just thinks it looks good.

I loved that mid-90's Cleveland team and was rooting for them to win the WS, even as a MN fan whose team had gone in the dumper in the middle of that decade. I had a t-shirt and a baseball cap that I wore all the time. It replaced my Michigan hat after someone stole it.

These are easy things for you to say when it isn't your team.  

I respectfully disagree, but only because I'm not invested in a team name that means nothing to me and has no personal tie.

I mean, as a Minnesotan, I understand team name changes. We went from MN Northstars to Wild. Besides thinking it's not a very good name, I really don't care they they changed it and wouldn't if they changed any of the other MN team names; however, I do think timberwolves was a slam dunk of a name. Vikings is good too, but could end up being an issue based on it being about people that didn't exactly exemplify humanitarianism.

I'm probably the wrong person to have this conversation with because name changes aren't something that I'm very invested in. If they wanted to change the name of our country or states, I wouldn't be opposed.

Halifax2TheMax

tbergs said:

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

MayDay10 said:

bbiggs said:

MayDay10 said:

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

As the most die hard Indians fan that you'll meet (except of course John Adams who lugs the drum into every game), I'm okay with the name changing at this point.  I don't like the Spiders, the Naps, or any of the old names.  I'd go with the Tribe. That would create continuity and the reality is, no fan is ever going to stop saying "Hey, when's the Tribe on tonight?".  They are the Tribe and they play at the Jake.  It's that simple.  
As an aside, the College of William and Mary changed their name a number of years ago to the Tribe, for the same reason.  Works fine down here. 

I feel like teams that make this change are going to make a far bigger departure from native names than this. "Tribe" isn't much better than "Indians."  I see some people suggest Washington Warriors and while that's not as grotesque as their previous name, it seems like the smart move it to just move totally away from that and make sure not to be going through this same thing in ten years.

I agree with this.  "Tribe" still opens the door to all sorts of Native American characterization and such.  If they are doing such a major move as renaming a 120 year old sports team, they are going to make sure they are well out of the crosshairs.

Would Native Americans take offense to the word "tribe" under any circumstances?  I'm thinking through this and don't see how it could be perceived as offensive or characterizing.  I think it is factual that Native Americans were often times part of tribes that they took great pride in being a part of.  It would seem more of a badge of honor than a negative connotation.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert on Native American history, but much of this we learned at a very young age.  I'm just missing the potential negative fallout from a move like that.

Its about continuing to profit off the characterization of a race of people who seem to be making it clear that they are not comfortable with this stuff.  i dont know if they will take as much offense or not.  Im sure some people will.  Maybe "Tribe" will be considered over-the-line in 15 years?   
You know fans will come dressed in head dresses.  Maybe bring foam tomahawks, gotta be careful what is depicted on merchandise, etc...  It will still keep the door open for Chief Wahoo.   Would people just call them the "Indians" like they currently call them the "Tribe"?  

Tribe also leaves them where they are now for branding, which is kind of a purgatory/nowhere to go.  I sense the team would like a clean break from anything Native American so they can sell merch and create sharper looking uniforms

I think this would be the biggest reason to move past Tribe. What the hell do you even use as the image for your brand? It's dead in the water and the only purpose seems to be a nostalgic shout out to the previous name. They need a fresh start that sounds good, looks good and sells. This is a big opportunity that most franchises don't get so they should spend a lot of time and money getting this right. If they do, they'll sell a ton of merch to their fan base and anyone who just thinks it looks good.

I loved that mid-90's Cleveland team and was rooting for them to win the WS, even as a MN fan whose team had gone in the dumper in the middle of that decade. I had a t-shirt and a baseball cap that I wore all the time. It replaced my Michigan hat after someone stole it.

These are easy things for you to say when it isn't your team.  

I respectfully disagree, but only because I'm not invested in a team name that means nothing to me and has no personal tie.

I mean, as a Minnesotan, I understand team name changes. We went from MN Northstars to Wild. Besides thinking it's not a very good name, I really don't care they they changed it and wouldn't if they changed any of the other MN team names; however, I do think timberwolves was a slam dunk of a name. Vikings is good too, but could end up being an issue based on it being about people that didn't exactly exemplify humanitarianism.

I'm probably the wrong person to have this conversation with because name changes aren't something that I'm very invested in. If they wanted to change the name of our country or states, I wouldn't be opposed.

Disunited States of Trumpistan?

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

"Tribe" might not be offensive if the team wasn't already connected to a native american culturally insensitive name. to me that sounds like "Indians Light". 

and let's be honest, when anyone says the word "tribe", literally zero people get a picture of a group of white people in their head. 

I don't think that's true at all. A tribe is a word that yes, is Native American in nature, but is used in all sorts of contexts of a group of people with a common set of beliefs, or whatever.  Just like the Strangest Tribe.  To say that literally zero think of white people is kind of silly.  When I say Tribe, I think about Cleveland baseball fans, my fellow fans.  I don't think about Native Americans or anything else.  

That could be true, but to me, when I hear a white person use the word "tribe", the concept of cultural appropriation pops into  my head.  My step daughter, wonderful, bright, marvelous person that she is, occasionally uses the word "tribe" to describe her circle of friends and every time she does I think it sounds awkward at best.  For one thing, her "tribe", a great bunch of people though they may be, do not fit the definition of tribe...

"a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader"

...because they are an eclectic group that does not fit that definition.  

There is a modern usage of the term "tribe" with it's own contemporary definition, but that word, used that way, must honestly and unarguably be described as an example of cultural appropriation.  It then becomes an issue how how one feels about cultural appropriation.  Personal, I don't dig it.

So when a white kid wears Air Jordan's and a flat cap,  is that wrong? It's cultural appropriation by the very definition.  What about when you break dance or play some jazz on your sax. Where's the line between respect and damage?

Other than traditional costume, I don't think there is a well defined cultural affiliation with clothing.  I will say, at best it looks a bit embarrassing and silly when a rocker like Dee Dee Ramone dresses like a rapper. 

Mixed race jazz bands go back a long way and few black jazz musicians today or in the past have had strong objections to white musicians playing jazz.  On the other hand, some will strongly object to white jazz musicians being given better opportunity or recognition for the music.  For example, in the early 70's I took a jazz appreciation class at San Francisco state under the tutelage of black recording jazz artist John Handy.  John told us that in many circles, big band jazz was often attributed to white bands like the Glenn Miller Orchestra or Tommy Dorsey's band, etc.  Handy did not object to these bands playing jazz music, but he did object to the fact that they were given credit for creating music that was originally created by and better written and performed  black jazz bands-  orchestras led by the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie.  Those white bands were also paid better and given better accommodations. Handy and most other black performers argued rightly that racism was an obvious component in how the music was received and rewarded, but there was no mention of cultural appropriation in white bands playing jazz.  And some of the greatest jazz musicians have had integrated jazz band from Louis Armstrong to Charlie Parker hiring Red Rodney (and having to claim Rodney was an albino black in order to play in some clubs) to Mile Davis working with white musicians.

So of course cultural appropriation is not a factor in jazz.  But racism certainly has been.

What you just described is cultural appropriation, isn't it?  Just because it went deep into racism doesn't mean it wasn't appropriation. 

Well, but not really, but only because Jazz, though primarily black music, is also American music.  An though it was formed by African Americans, as truly American music, it makes sense that it would become inclusive of other cultures while being acknowledged as having originally been created by African Americans.  And again, it was mainly black jazz musicians who made the move to have integrated bands and their intentional inclusion of white musicians into the music removes it from cultural appropriation.  You won't find Native Americans encouraging whites to join in on Ghost Dancing. 

And I would say traditional music from specific places and times- like, say- Lakota Native American Ghost dance chanting-  is really the only music that could be culturally appropriated.  Jazz and blues have been more evolutionary and broadly inclusive in nature.

I'm making the point that cultural app is totally common in our country,  from music,  to dress to language.  We used to call it a melting pot of cultures but now it seems to be a negative thing. 

I'm good with the idea of incorporating ideas in music, dress or whatever as long as it is approved of by all concerned.  But if something specific to a group or culture is appropriated without consent of that culture or group, I would say that is an egregious act of cultural theft, aka cultural appropriation.

Brian - so I'm not trying to pick you apart, but what does that mean?  The whole culture has to unanimously agree?  Does there have to a vote?  Surely some Black people were uncomfortable with the success of the Beastie Boys.  Should I ditch the records, should they be removed from the HOF, should their records come off the shelf?  The bar you set is unachievable.  How does a culture provide consent?

Pick away,  ¡No problemo!*

Not the whole culture, but the majority.

No vote needed- they speak for themselves.

Black and Beasties? I don't know enough about rap or hip-hop to speak on that subject.

Unreachable?  I don't think so.  Just listen to what the people have to say.

*Analyze that one!  Is my use of Spanish a form of cultural appropriation?  I don't know for sure.  We have a lot of Hispanic people in our neck of the woods and  I've heard Spanish spoken around me all my life.  When I order tacos from Santa Maria Taqueria, I inevitably use some Spanish without really thinking about it.  Am I part Hispanic?  Nope!  Has any Hispanic person ever asked me to not use Spanish?  Nope!

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

"Tribe" might not be offensive if the team wasn't already connected to a native american culturally insensitive name. to me that sounds like "Indians Light". 

and let's be honest, when anyone says the word "tribe", literally zero people get a picture of a group of white people in their head. 

I don't think that's true at all. A tribe is a word that yes, is Native American in nature, but is used in all sorts of contexts of a group of people with a common set of beliefs, or whatever.  Just like the Strangest Tribe.  To say that literally zero think of white people is kind of silly.  When I say Tribe, I think about Cleveland baseball fans, my fellow fans.  I don't think about Native Americans or anything else.  

That could be true, but to me, when I hear a white person use the word "tribe", the concept of cultural appropriation pops into  my head.  My step daughter, wonderful, bright, marvelous person that she is, occasionally uses the word "tribe" to describe her circle of friends and every time she does I think it sounds awkward at best.  For one thing, her "tribe", a great bunch of people though they may be, do not fit the definition of tribe...

"a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader"

...because they are an eclectic group that does not fit that definition.  

There is a modern usage of the term "tribe" with it's own contemporary definition, but that word, used that way, must honestly and unarguably be described as an example of cultural appropriation.  It then becomes an issue how how one feels about cultural appropriation.  Personal, I don't dig it.

So when a white kid wears Air Jordan's and a flat cap,  is that wrong? It's cultural appropriation by the very definition.  What about when you break dance or play some jazz on your sax. Where's the line between respect and damage?

Other than traditional costume, I don't think there is a well defined cultural affiliation with clothing.  I will say, at best it looks a bit embarrassing and silly when a rocker like Dee Dee Ramone dresses like a rapper. 

Mixed race jazz bands go back a long way and few black jazz musicians today or in the past have had strong objections to white musicians playing jazz.  On the other hand, some will strongly object to white jazz musicians being given better opportunity or recognition for the music.  For example, in the early 70's I took a jazz appreciation class at San Francisco state under the tutelage of black recording jazz artist John Handy.  John told us that in many circles, big band jazz was often attributed to white bands like the Glenn Miller Orchestra or Tommy Dorsey's band, etc.  Handy did not object to these bands playing jazz music, but he did object to the fact that they were given credit for creating music that was originally created by and better written and performed  black jazz bands-  orchestras led by the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie.  Those white bands were also paid better and given better accommodations. Handy and most other black performers argued rightly that racism was an obvious component in how the music was received and rewarded, but there was no mention of cultural appropriation in white bands playing jazz.  And some of the greatest jazz musicians have had integrated jazz band from Louis Armstrong to Charlie Parker hiring Red Rodney (and having to claim Rodney was an albino black in order to play in some clubs) to Mile Davis working with white musicians.

So of course cultural appropriation is not a factor in jazz.  But racism certainly has been.

What you just described is cultural appropriation, isn't it?  Just because it went deep into racism doesn't mean it wasn't appropriation. 

Well, but not really, but only because Jazz, though primarily black music, is also American music.  An though it was formed by African Americans, as truly American music, it makes sense that it would become inclusive of other cultures while being acknowledged as having originally been created by African Americans.  And again, it was mainly black jazz musicians who made the move to have integrated bands and their intentional inclusion of white musicians into the music removes it from cultural appropriation.  You won't find Native Americans encouraging whites to join in on Ghost Dancing. 

And I would say traditional music from specific places and times- like, say- Lakota Native American Ghost dance chanting-  is really the only music that could be culturally appropriated.  Jazz and blues have been more evolutionary and broadly inclusive in nature.

I'm making the point that cultural app is totally common in our country,  from music,  to dress to language.  We used to call it a melting pot of cultures but now it seems to be a negative thing. 

I'm good with the idea of incorporating ideas in music, dress or whatever as long as it is approved of by all concerned.  But if something specific to a group or culture is appropriated without consent of that culture or group, I would say that is an egregious act of cultural theft, aka cultural appropriation.

Brian - so I'm not trying to pick you apart, but what does that mean?  The whole culture has to unanimously agree?  Does there have to a vote?  Surely some Black people were uncomfortable with the success of the Beastie Boys.  Should I ditch the records, should they be removed from the HOF, should their records come off the shelf?  The bar you set is unachievable.  How does a culture provide consent?

Pick away,  ¡No problemo!*

Not the whole culture, but the majority.

No vote needed- they speak for themselves.

Black and Beasties? I don't know enough about rap or hip-hop to speak on that subject.

Unreachable?  I don't think so.  Just listen to what the people have to say.

*Analyze that one!  Is my use of Spanish a form of cultural appropriation?  I don't know for sure.  We have a lot of Hispanic people in our neck of the woods and  I've heard Spanish spoken around me all my life.  When I order tacos from Santa Maria Taqueria, I inevitably use some Spanish without really thinking about it.  Am I part Hispanic?  Nope!  Has any Hispanic person ever asked me to not use Spanish?  Nope!

What if one did, would you stop using it forever?  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

"Tribe" might not be offensive if the team wasn't already connected to a native american culturally insensitive name. to me that sounds like "Indians Light". 

and let's be honest, when anyone says the word "tribe", literally zero people get a picture of a group of white people in their head. 

I don't think that's true at all. A tribe is a word that yes, is Native American in nature, but is used in all sorts of contexts of a group of people with a common set of beliefs, or whatever.  Just like the Strangest Tribe.  To say that literally zero think of white people is kind of silly.  When I say Tribe, I think about Cleveland baseball fans, my fellow fans.  I don't think about Native Americans or anything else.  

That could be true, but to me, when I hear a white person use the word "tribe", the concept of cultural appropriation pops into  my head.  My step daughter, wonderful, bright, marvelous person that she is, occasionally uses the word "tribe" to describe her circle of friends and every time she does I think it sounds awkward at best.  For one thing, her "tribe", a great bunch of people though they may be, do not fit the definition of tribe...

"a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader"

...because they are an eclectic group that does not fit that definition.  

There is a modern usage of the term "tribe" with it's own contemporary definition, but that word, used that way, must honestly and unarguably be described as an example of cultural appropriation.  It then becomes an issue how how one feels about cultural appropriation.  Personal, I don't dig it.

So when a white kid wears Air Jordan's and a flat cap,  is that wrong? It's cultural appropriation by the very definition.  What about when you break dance or play some jazz on your sax. Where's the line between respect and damage?

Other than traditional costume, I don't think there is a well defined cultural affiliation with clothing.  I will say, at best it looks a bit embarrassing and silly when a rocker like Dee Dee Ramone dresses like a rapper. 

Mixed race jazz bands go back a long way and few black jazz musicians today or in the past have had strong objections to white musicians playing jazz.  On the other hand, some will strongly object to white jazz musicians being given better opportunity or recognition for the music.  For example, in the early 70's I took a jazz appreciation class at San Francisco state under the tutelage of black recording jazz artist John Handy.  John told us that in many circles, big band jazz was often attributed to white bands like the Glenn Miller Orchestra or Tommy Dorsey's band, etc.  Handy did not object to these bands playing jazz music, but he did object to the fact that they were given credit for creating music that was originally created by and better written and performed  black jazz bands-  orchestras led by the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie.  Those white bands were also paid better and given better accommodations. Handy and most other black performers argued rightly that racism was an obvious component in how the music was received and rewarded, but there was no mention of cultural appropriation in white bands playing jazz.  And some of the greatest jazz musicians have had integrated jazz band from Louis Armstrong to Charlie Parker hiring Red Rodney (and having to claim Rodney was an albino black in order to play in some clubs) to Mile Davis working with white musicians.

So of course cultural appropriation is not a factor in jazz.  But racism certainly has been.

What you just described is cultural appropriation, isn't it?  Just because it went deep into racism doesn't mean it wasn't appropriation. 

Well, but not really, but only because Jazz, though primarily black music, is also American music.  An though it was formed by African Americans, as truly American music, it makes sense that it would become inclusive of other cultures while being acknowledged as having originally been created by African Americans.  And again, it was mainly black jazz musicians who made the move to have integrated bands and their intentional inclusion of white musicians into the music removes it from cultural appropriation.  You won't find Native Americans encouraging whites to join in on Ghost Dancing. 

And I would say traditional music from specific places and times- like, say- Lakota Native American Ghost dance chanting-  is really the only music that could be culturally appropriated.  Jazz and blues have been more evolutionary and broadly inclusive in nature.

I'm making the point that cultural app is totally common in our country,  from music,  to dress to language.  We used to call it a melting pot of cultures but now it seems to be a negative thing. 

I'm good with the idea of incorporating ideas in music, dress or whatever as long as it is approved of by all concerned.  But if something specific to a group or culture is appropriated without consent of that culture or group, I would say that is an egregious act of cultural theft, aka cultural appropriation.

Brian - so I'm not trying to pick you apart, but what does that mean?  The whole culture has to unanimously agree?  Does there have to a vote?  Surely some Black people were uncomfortable with the success of the Beastie Boys.  Should I ditch the records, should they be removed from the HOF, should their records come off the shelf?  The bar you set is unachievable.  How does a culture provide consent?

Pick away,  ¡No problemo!*

Not the whole culture, but the majority.

No vote needed- they speak for themselves.

Black and Beasties? I don't know enough about rap or hip-hop to speak on that subject.

Unreachable?  I don't think so.  Just listen to what the people have to say.

*Analyze that one!  Is my use of Spanish a form of cultural appropriation?  I don't know for sure.  We have a lot of Hispanic people in our neck of the woods and  I've heard Spanish spoken around me all my life.  When I order tacos from Santa Maria Taqueria, I inevitably use some Spanish without really thinking about it.  Am I part Hispanic?  Nope!  Has any Hispanic person ever asked me to not use Spanish?  Nope!

What if one did, would you stop using it forever?  

Context? But have you, your race, your belonging, ever been caricatured, ridiculed, been made fun of and denied all the righteous rights of a supposed “constitution?” And dismissed when offended by the caricature but more importantly, the history? Sure you have.

hedonist

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

"Tribe" might not be offensive if the team wasn't already connected to a native american culturally insensitive name. to me that sounds like "Indians Light". 

and let's be honest, when anyone says the word "tribe", literally zero people get a picture of a group of white people in their head. 

I don't think that's true at all. A tribe is a word that yes, is Native American in nature, but is used in all sorts of contexts of a group of people with a common set of beliefs, or whatever.  Just like the Strangest Tribe.  To say that literally zero think of white people is kind of silly.  When I say Tribe, I think about Cleveland baseball fans, my fellow fans.  I don't think about Native Americans or anything else.  

That could be true, but to me, when I hear a white person use the word "tribe", the concept of cultural appropriation pops into  my head.  My step daughter, wonderful, bright, marvelous person that she is, occasionally uses the word "tribe" to describe her circle of friends and every time she does I think it sounds awkward at best.  For one thing, her "tribe", a great bunch of people though they may be, do not fit the definition of tribe...

"a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader"

...because they are an eclectic group that does not fit that definition.  

There is a modern usage of the term "tribe" with it's own contemporary definition, but that word, used that way, must honestly and unarguably be described as an example of cultural appropriation.  It then becomes an issue how how one feels about cultural appropriation.  Personal, I don't dig it.

So when a white kid wears Air Jordan's and a flat cap,  is that wrong? It's cultural appropriation by the very definition.  What about when you break dance or play some jazz on your sax. Where's the line between respect and damage?

Other than traditional costume, I don't think there is a well defined cultural affiliation with clothing.  I will say, at best it looks a bit embarrassing and silly when a rocker like Dee Dee Ramone dresses like a rapper. 

Mixed race jazz bands go back a long way and few black jazz musicians today or in the past have had strong objections to white musicians playing jazz.  On the other hand, some will strongly object to white jazz musicians being given better opportunity or recognition for the music.  For example, in the early 70's I took a jazz appreciation class at San Francisco state under the tutelage of black recording jazz artist John Handy.  John told us that in many circles, big band jazz was often attributed to white bands like the Glenn Miller Orchestra or Tommy Dorsey's band, etc.  Handy did not object to these bands playing jazz music, but he did object to the fact that they were given credit for creating music that was originally created by and better written and performed  black jazz bands-  orchestras led by the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie.  Those white bands were also paid better and given better accommodations. Handy and most other black performers argued rightly that racism was an obvious component in how the music was received and rewarded, but there was no mention of cultural appropriation in white bands playing jazz.  And some of the greatest jazz musicians have had integrated jazz band from Louis Armstrong to Charlie Parker hiring Red Rodney (and having to claim Rodney was an albino black in order to play in some clubs) to Mile Davis working with white musicians.

So of course cultural appropriation is not a factor in jazz.  But racism certainly has been.

What you just described is cultural appropriation, isn't it?  Just because it went deep into racism doesn't mean it wasn't appropriation. 

Well, but not really, but only because Jazz, though primarily black music, is also American music.  An though it was formed by African Americans, as truly American music, it makes sense that it would become inclusive of other cultures while being acknowledged as having originally been created by African Americans.  And again, it was mainly black jazz musicians who made the move to have integrated bands and their intentional inclusion of white musicians into the music removes it from cultural appropriation.  You won't find Native Americans encouraging whites to join in on Ghost Dancing. 

And I would say traditional music from specific places and times- like, say- Lakota Native American Ghost dance chanting-  is really the only music that could be culturally appropriated.  Jazz and blues have been more evolutionary and broadly inclusive in nature.

I'm making the point that cultural app is totally common in our country,  from music,  to dress to language.  We used to call it a melting pot of cultures but now it seems to be a negative thing. 

I'm good with the idea of incorporating ideas in music, dress or whatever as long as it is approved of by all concerned.  But if something specific to a group or culture is appropriated without consent of that culture or group, I would say that is an egregious act of cultural theft, aka cultural appropriation.

Brian - so I'm not trying to pick you apart, but what does that mean?  The whole culture has to unanimously agree?  Does there have to a vote?  Surely some Black people were uncomfortable with the success of the Beastie Boys.  Should I ditch the records, should they be removed from the HOF, should their records come off the shelf?  The bar you set is unachievable.  How does a culture provide consent?

Pick away,  ¡No problemo!*

Not the whole culture, but the majority.

No vote needed- they speak for themselves.

Black and Beasties? I don't know enough about rap or hip-hop to speak on that subject.

Unreachable?  I don't think so.  Just listen to what the people have to say.

*Analyze that one!  Is my use of Spanish a form of cultural appropriation?  I don't know for sure.  We have a lot of Hispanic people in our neck of the woods and  I've heard Spanish spoken around me all my life.  When I order tacos from Santa Maria Taqueria, I inevitably use some Spanish without really thinking about it.  Am I part Hispanic?  Nope!  Has any Hispanic person ever asked me to not use Spanish?  Nope!

What if one did, would you stop using it forever?  

Context? But have you, your race, your belonging, ever been caricatured, ridiculed, been made fun of and denied all the righteous rights of a supposed “constitution?” And dismissed when offended by the caricature but more importantly, the history? Sure you have.

*Jew waving hand*

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

"Tribe" might not be offensive if the team wasn't already connected to a native american culturally insensitive name. to me that sounds like "Indians Light". 

and let's be honest, when anyone says the word "tribe", literally zero people get a picture of a group of white people in their head. 

I don't think that's true at all. A tribe is a word that yes, is Native American in nature, but is used in all sorts of contexts of a group of people with a common set of beliefs, or whatever.  Just like the Strangest Tribe.  To say that literally zero think of white people is kind of silly.  When I say Tribe, I think about Cleveland baseball fans, my fellow fans.  I don't think about Native Americans or anything else.  

That could be true, but to me, when I hear a white person use the word "tribe", the concept of cultural appropriation pops into  my head.  My step daughter, wonderful, bright, marvelous person that she is, occasionally uses the word "tribe" to describe her circle of friends and every time she does I think it sounds awkward at best.  For one thing, her "tribe", a great bunch of people though they may be, do not fit the definition of tribe...

"a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader"

...because they are an eclectic group that does not fit that definition.  

There is a modern usage of the term "tribe" with it's own contemporary definition, but that word, used that way, must honestly and unarguably be described as an example of cultural appropriation.  It then becomes an issue how how one feels about cultural appropriation.  Personal, I don't dig it.

So when a white kid wears Air Jordan's and a flat cap,  is that wrong? It's cultural appropriation by the very definition.  What about when you break dance or play some jazz on your sax. Where's the line between respect and damage?

Other than traditional costume, I don't think there is a well defined cultural affiliation with clothing.  I will say, at best it looks a bit embarrassing and silly when a rocker like Dee Dee Ramone dresses like a rapper. 

Mixed race jazz bands go back a long way and few black jazz musicians today or in the past have had strong objections to white musicians playing jazz.  On the other hand, some will strongly object to white jazz musicians being given better opportunity or recognition for the music.  For example, in the early 70's I took a jazz appreciation class at San Francisco state under the tutelage of black recording jazz artist John Handy.  John told us that in many circles, big band jazz was often attributed to white bands like the Glenn Miller Orchestra or Tommy Dorsey's band, etc.  Handy did not object to these bands playing jazz music, but he did object to the fact that they were given credit for creating music that was originally created by and better written and performed  black jazz bands-  orchestras led by the likes of Duke Ellington and Count Basie.  Those white bands were also paid better and given better accommodations. Handy and most other black performers argued rightly that racism was an obvious component in how the music was received and rewarded, but there was no mention of cultural appropriation in white bands playing jazz.  And some of the greatest jazz musicians have had integrated jazz band from Louis Armstrong to Charlie Parker hiring Red Rodney (and having to claim Rodney was an albino black in order to play in some clubs) to Mile Davis working with white musicians.

So of course cultural appropriation is not a factor in jazz.  But racism certainly has been.

What you just described is cultural appropriation, isn't it?  Just because it went deep into racism doesn't mean it wasn't appropriation. 

Well, but not really, but only because Jazz, though primarily black music, is also American music.  An though it was formed by African Americans, as truly American music, it makes sense that it would become inclusive of other cultures while being acknowledged as having originally been created by African Americans.  And again, it was mainly black jazz musicians who made the move to have integrated bands and their intentional inclusion of white musicians into the music removes it from cultural appropriation.  You won't find Native Americans encouraging whites to join in on Ghost Dancing. 

And I would say traditional music from specific places and times- like, say- Lakota Native American Ghost dance chanting-  is really the only music that could be culturally appropriated.  Jazz and blues have been more evolutionary and broadly inclusive in nature.

I'm making the point that cultural app is totally common in our country,  from music,  to dress to language.  We used to call it a melting pot of cultures but now it seems to be a negative thing. 

I'm good with the idea of incorporating ideas in music, dress or whatever as long as it is approved of by all concerned.  But if something specific to a group or culture is appropriated without consent of that culture or group, I would say that is an egregious act of cultural theft, aka cultural appropriation.

Brian - so I'm not trying to pick you apart, but what does that mean?  The whole culture has to unanimously agree?  Does there have to a vote?  Surely some Black people were uncomfortable with the success of the Beastie Boys.  Should I ditch the records, should they be removed from the HOF, should their records come off the shelf?  The bar you set is unachievable.  How does a culture provide consent?

Pick away,  ¡No problemo!*

Not the whole culture, but the majority.

No vote needed- they speak for themselves.

Black and Beasties? I don't know enough about rap or hip-hop to speak on that subject.

Unreachable?  I don't think so.  Just listen to what the people have to say.

*Analyze that one!  Is my use of Spanish a form of cultural appropriation?  I don't know for sure.  We have a lot of Hispanic people in our neck of the woods and  I've heard Spanish spoken around me all my life.  When I order tacos from Santa Maria Taqueria, I inevitably use some Spanish without really thinking about it.  Am I part Hispanic?  Nope!  Has any Hispanic person ever asked me to not use Spanish?  Nope!

What if one did, would you stop using it forever?  

¿Estas loco en la cabeza?  ¡No me tomes el pelo!  Eso no pasaría.